Message-ID: <d8df4d67-1a01-ff83-7739-af49b5b5e574@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Sun, 13 Jun 2021 18:14:52 +0800
From:   Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "Markku-Juhani O . Saarinen" <mjos@....fi>,
        Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@....fi>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] crypto: x86/sm4 - add AES-NI/AVX/x86_64 assembler
 implementation

Hi Eric,

On 6/11/21 7:27 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 09:44:59PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
>> This patch adds AES-NI/AVX/x86_64 assembler implementation of SM4
>> block cipher. Through two affine transforms, we can use the AES
>> S-Box to simulate the SM4 S-Box to achieve the effect of instruction
>> acceleration.
>>
> 
> Benchmark results, please.
> 
> Also, is this passing the self-tests, including the fuzz tests?
> 

I will provide this information in the next version.

>> +/*
>> + * void sm4_aesni_avx_expand_key(const u8 *key, u32 *rk_enc,
>> + *                  u32 *rk_dec, const u32 *fk, const u32 *ck);
>> + */
>> +SYM_FUNC_START(sm4_aesni_avx_expand_key)
>> +	/* input:
>> +	 *	%rdi: 128-bit key
>> +	 *	%rsi: rkey_enc
>> +	 *	%rdx: rkey_dec
>> +	 *	%rcx: fk array
>> +	 *	%r8: ck array
>> +	 */
>> +	FRAME_BEGIN
> 
> Key expansion isn't performance-critical.  Can the C library version be used, or
> does the key need to be expanded in a way specific to this x86 implementation?
> 

It can be replaced by a common implementation of C library. For expand 
key that are not called frequently, the optimization of a specific 
instruction set does not bring much benefit. Of course, it is possible 
to delete this implementation.

>> +/*
>> + * void sm4_aesni_avx_crypt4(const u32 *rk, u8 *dst,
>> + *                          const u8 *src, int nblocks)
>> + */
>> +SYM_FUNC_START(sm4_aesni_avx_crypt4)
>> +	/* input:
>> +	 *	%rdi: round key array, CTX
>> +	 *	%rsi: dst (1..4 blocks)
>> +	 *	%rdx: src (1..4 blocks)
>> +	 *	%rcx: num blocks (1..4)
>> +	 */
>> +	FRAME_BEGIN
> [...]
> 
>> +static void sm4_encrypt(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, u8 *out, const u8 *in)
>> +{
>> +	const struct crypto_sm4_ctx *ctx = crypto_tfm_ctx(tfm);
>> +
>> +	if (crypto_simd_usable()) {
>> +		kernel_fpu_begin();
>> +		sm4_aesni_avx_crypt4(ctx->rkey_enc, out, in, 1);
>> +		kernel_fpu_end();
>> +	} else
>> +		crypto_sm4_do_crypt(ctx->rkey_enc, out, in);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void sm4_decrypt(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, u8 *out, const u8 *in)
>> +{
>> +	const struct crypto_sm4_ctx *ctx = crypto_tfm_ctx(tfm);
>> +
>> +	if (crypto_simd_usable()) {
>> +		kernel_fpu_begin();
>> +		sm4_aesni_avx_crypt4(ctx->rkey_dec, out, in, 1);
>> +		kernel_fpu_end();
>> +	} else
>> +		crypto_sm4_do_crypt(ctx->rkey_dec, out, in);
>> +}
> 
> Your assembly code appears to handle encrypting up to 4 blocks at a time.
> However you have only wired this up to the "cipher" API which does 1 block at a
> time.  Is this intentional?
> 
> What are your performance results with real-world chaining modes like XTS, and
> do you plan to implement any of these modes directly?
> 

This implementation is intentional. First, a general block encryption is 
provided. There is no obvious performance improvement in this 
implementation. The key to optimization is to make full use of parallel 
four blocks encryption at a time. This is still under development, and I 
will continue to implement things like XTS in the future. Optimization 
of such specific modes.

>> +
>> +static struct crypto_alg sm4_asm_alg = {
>> +	.cra_name		= "sm4",
>> +	.cra_driver_name	= "sm4-asm",
> 
> In arch/x86/crypto/, "-asm" usually means a vanilla x86 assembly implementation
> without any AES-NI, SSE, AVX, etc. instructions.  Calling this something like
> "sm4-aesni-avx" would make more sense.  (Or is it actually avx2, not avx?)
> 

will do in next version patch.

>> +config CRYPTO_SM4_AESNI_AVX_X86_64
>> +	tristate "SM4 cipher algorithm (x86_64/AES-NI/AVX)"
>> +	depends on X86 && 64BIT
>> +	select CRYPTO_SKCIPHER
>> +	select CRYPTO_SIMD
>> +	select CRYPTO_ALGAPI
>> +	select CRYPTO_LIB_SM4
> 
> As-is, neither CRYPTO_SKCIPHER nor CRYPTO_SIMD needs to be selected here.
> 

ditto.

>> +	help
>> +	  SM4 cipher algorithms (OSCCA GB/T 32907-2016) (x86_64/AES-NI/AVX).
>> +
>> +	  SM4 (GBT.32907-2016) is a cryptographic standard issued by the
>> +	  Organization of State Commercial Administration of China (OSCCA)
>> +	  as an authorized cryptographic algorithms for the use within China.
>> +
>> +	  SMS4 was originally created for use in protecting wireless
>> +	  networks, and is mandated in the Chinese National Standard for
>> +	  Wireless LAN WAPI (Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure)
>> +	  (GB.15629.11-2003).
>> +
>> +	  The latest SM4 standard (GBT.32907-2016) was proposed by OSCCA and
>> +	  standardized through TC 260 of the Standardization Administration
>> +	  of the People's Republic of China (SAC).
>> +
>> +	  The input, output, and key of SMS4 are each 128 bits.
>> +
>> +	  See also: <https://eprint.iacr.org/2008/329.pdf>
>> +
>> +	  If unsure, say N.
> 
> This is the help text for the x86 implementation specifically.  Please don't
> have boilerplate text about the algorithm here; that already exists for the
> generic implementation.  The text should explain about the x86 implementation.
> 

ditto.

> - Eric
> 

Thanks for your suggestion.

Cheers,
Tianjia

Powered by blists - more mailing lists